'Jewish and Democratic'

Banbh

This from US representative Rice after Israel/US lost the vote at the UN on Palestinian statehood:

"...two states for two people with a sovereign, viable independent Palestine living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel,"

But can a state be both Jewish and democratic? (And equally - so as the thread is not derailed - can the Islamic Republic of Iran be truly a republic?)

If a country declares itself to be of a particular religion then those of other religions and none cannot be full citizens and that country cannot call itself democratic.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

of course it can, democracy is just about how you choose a government. jim crow america was still a democratic republic, Ireland when condoms were illegal was still democratic and israel where arabs are second citizens is still democratic.
democratic doesn't mean good.

Banbh

Democracy is just about how you choose a government? I think there's a bit more to it than that. That definition would make apartheid South Africa or even Nazi Germany a democracy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well the nazis seized power through undemocratic means. why wouldn't south africa have been considered a democracy? they held elections didnt they? the fact it was a racist state is seperate from how that state was organised. SA and israel could be democratic or not, they'd still be racist.

Peregrinus

"Jewish" isn't just a religious identity; it's an ethnic/national identity. And most Israeli Jews are, in fact, not religious. So, can you have a Jewish and democratic state? Well, if you can have an Irish and democratic state, a French and democratic state, an Italian and democratic state, then you can have a Jewish and democratic state. Why not?

Of course, a Jewish and democratic state will have to meet challenges, and one of them will be dealing democratically with its non-Jewish minority. Lots of democratic states face a similar challenge, but this will be particularly acute both because the non-Jewish minority is pretty large and because there's an unfortunate history of hostility and conflict that has to be overcome. But there's nothing in the Jewish, as opposed to French, or Arab, or Chinese, nature of the state which makes overcoming it a priori impossible.

robindch

A democracy is a political system in which the government is run directly by the citizens and all decisions are made via public referendum. Ireland, on the other hand, runs a representative democracy, in which the citizens elect individuals who make decisions -- although the way it runs here, the citizens elect individuals who elect an individual who makes decisions, so it's arguable that it's neither democracy, nor representative democracy.

South Africa under apartheid denied non-whites votes and the right to sit in the national parliament, so it wasn't a representative democracy either. Similarly, Nazi Germany ran three parliamentary elections in the 1930's, but limited the candidates to those approved by the Nazi party, so while most people could vote, there was no chance that the Nazi party would lose power, so that wasn't really a representative democracy. And neither of them were in the slightest bit democratic.

The Nazis, incidentally, acquired absolute power in Germany relatively easily, and broke few, if any, laws while doing so. Neither did it break many legs in the process -- that came later.

Banbh

The Jewishness of the Israeli state is based solely on religion. Non-religious people in Israel (of Jewish heritage) do not have full rights and immigrants from the US or Russia do - if they adhere to the Jewish religion.

In fact, as I have a Jewish granny, I can declare myself an Israeli in the morning with more property and voting rights than others who were born and have lived in the area.

Defining nationality by religion cannot be democratic as it excludes some citizens.

Peregrinus

Banbh wrote: »

The Jewishness of the Israeli state is based solely on religion. Non-religious people in Israel (of Jewish heritage) do not have full rights and immigrants from the US or Russia do - if they adhere to the Jewish religion.

In fact, as I have a Jewish granny, I can declare myself an Israeli in the morning with more property and voting rights than others who were born and have lived in the area.

Defining nationality by religion cannot be democratic as it excludes some citizens.

I'm not sure I follow you, Banbh. If you can become an Israeli tomorrow on the strength of your grandmother being Jewish, that suggests that it;s not necessary for you yourself to be religious in order to qualify as an Israeli citizen. In other words, you don't need to be religious to immigrate to Israel and immediately become a citizen and have the full rights of citizens; you just need to be Jewish (i.e. to be Jewish by descent).

As for people born in Israel, SFAIK everyone born in Israel, Jewish or not, is an Israeli citizen with full citizenship rights. (But this is not true of people born in the occupied territories.)

Obliq

Sounds a bit like Ireland then: "If you were born outside Ireland to an Irish citizen who was himself or herself born outside Ireland and if any of your grandparents was born in Ireland, then you are entitled to become an Irish citizen." http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Sounds a bit like Ireland then: "If you were born outside Ireland to an Irish citizen who was himself or herself born outside Ireland and if any of your grandparents was born in Ireland, then you are entitled to become an Irish citizen." http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

Possibly in the case of Israel it is different in that Judaism is passed through the female line - so if one had a Jewish grandmother and a Jewish mother one is considered Jewish and can become a citizen of Israel without any of one's ancestors ever having set foot there in the last 2000 years. I am not aware of any other State that grants citizenship based only on religion. To be Irish under the grandparent clause - one's grandparent must have been born on the island of Ireland, Israel has no such qualification - one simply needs to be Jewish.



At least this was how it was explained to me by a Jewish friend - who set her son to a Jewish school in North London so he could be aware of his culture and took him out again pretty quickly when he came home spouting extremist Zionist views.

Does anyone know if they do extend the grandparent clause to non-Jews whose grandparents were born in say Jerusalem?

BTW it was a 3rd generation Israeli who once described Zionists to me as 'Jewish Nazis'.

Obliq

I know what you're saying, but as was mentioned before, the Jewish people are an ethnic culture as well as a faith.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

A democracy is a political system in which the government is run directly by the citizens and all decisions are made via public referendum. Ireland, on the other hand, runs a representative democracy, in which the citizens elect individuals who make decisions...

So the question as to whether a country is a *real* democracy (representative or otherwise) boils down to whether all the population are allowed to vote for whoever they want - without restriction on skin-colour, candidates, or without dubious counting practices.

If the above is followed it doesn't matter whether you call a state "Jewish and Democratic", or "Irish and Democratic", or even a "Democratic People's Republic".

Clearly in many cases, however, this is not the case.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

I know what you're saying, but as was mentioned before, the Jewish people are an ethnic culture as well as a faith.

True - but how far does that 'ethnicity' stretch?

In the case of Israel it is limitless as long as one's female line of descent is Jewish. No other country does that as far as I am aware. Using the ethnicity argument would allow Paul Ryan to claim Irish citizenship even though he is 5 generations removed. :eek:

The Jewish friend who explained it to me was born in Paris and was her mother, her grandmother was born in Poland as were the previous 5 generations. Now because his mother/grandmother/gg-grandmother etc etc were Jewish her son Bou-Bou (as we called him) was entitled to Israeli citizenship yet Bou-Bou's children are not entitled to Israeli citizenship as their mother is Goyim - ethnicity is not the criteria applied, it is religion.

biko

The hardcore jews in Israel are indeed very hardcore but the majority of the people are not very religious at all.

I would say that Israel is already a democracy today.
As a part of democracy people tend to look at how free a country is - freedom to worship, freedom to leave, freedom of expression without repercussion etc.
Considering this Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.

Let me know when a transsexual man can represent an Arab nation as Dana International did for Israel in Eurovision 1998, 14 years ago.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

The hardcore jews in Israel are indeed very hardcore but the majority of the people are not very religious at all.

I would say that Israel is already a democracy today.
As a part of democracy people tend to look at how free a country is - freedom to worship, freedom to leave, freedom of expression without repercussion etc.
Considering this Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.

Let me know when a transsexual man can represent an Arab nation as Dana International did for Israel in Eurovision 1998, 14 years ago.

Athens was a democracy, and was a nation of war mongering slave owners. America was a democracy and was a nation where a large part of the economy was based on slavery. Israel is a nation that illegally colonises areas outside its borders and runs a two tier apartheid like system. Going 'but look at the Arabs' doesn't really cut it.

Cool Mo D

robindch wrote: »

The Nazis, incidentally, acquired absolute power in Germany relatively easily, and broke few, if any, laws while doing so. Neither did it break many legs in the process -- that came later.

Completely untrue - for one thing the Nazi SA and SS were involved in paramilitary violence and murder of political opponents for 20 years before the party seized power. The Nazi's never achieved a majority in parliament (only gaining 19% of the vote in the 1932 election), and they gained absolute power by suspending the constitution in the aftermath of the panic of the burning of the Reichstag.

And they did not acquire power easily - it took them 20 years to get where they were, and many events along the way could have thrown them off.

Rented Mule

Democracy in all of these cases just means that you 'outnumber' the other groups in these countries.

Cool Mo D

And really, Ancient Greece (or apartheid South Africa) cannot be considered a democracy in the modern sense. To be a real democracy, you need universal suffrage.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

True - but how far does that 'ethnicity' stretch?

In the case of Israel it is limitless as long as one's female line of descent is Jewish. No other country does that as far as I am aware. Using the ethnicity argument would allow Paul Ryan to claim Irish citizenship even though he is 5 generations removed. :eek:

The Jewish friend who explained it to me was born in Paris and was her mother, her grandmother was born in Poland as were the previous 5 generations. Now because his mother/grandmother/gg-grandmother etc etc were Jewish her son Bou-Bou (as we called him) was entitled to Israeli citizenship yet Bou-Bou's children are not entitled to Israeli citizenship as their mother is Goyim - ethnicity is not the criteria applied, it is religion.

Yeah, I don't dispute all that in the slightest. My fella was born in Scotland, his mother in Belgium (where she was sheltered in a convent during the war), his father in Poland, one set of Grandparents in the Ukraine and the other in Irkutsk, Mongolia. However, as the Jewish people were bumped from every country they were resident in, and have basically kept their bloodline through their faith (the fella looks Jewish, there could be no doubt about his ethnicity), I do see that their religion/culture/ethnicity is a fairly special case.

I agree that it's particularly contentious that for citizenship to their "homeland" of Israel, a jewish person's ancestors don't have to have been born there at all, and that that right is passed on solely through religious terms in the matriarchy is also extremely dodgy - but we all know how this messy situation came about through the age-old persecution of the Jewish faith. I am not saying it's right, and neither does the fella, but I do think that I can't adequately determine the rights and wrongs of it from here. In other words, it's SUCH a mess, that I can't form a proper opinion.

robindch

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Completely untrue - for one thing the Nazi SA and SS were involved in paramilitary violence and murder of political opponents for 20 years before the party seized power.

Never said they weren't; check the post again, though I'd say their prior violence took place over something closer to ten or twelve years, rather than 20

The point I was making above is that the Weimar Republic and which allowed the Nazis, fully legally, to assume dictatorial powers was, broadly speaking a representative democracy much like our own, but one which the Hitler subverted once he did assume power and in the process, turning it into something that wasn't a representative democracy. This was in response to Banbh's claim that Nazi Germany was democratir -- it certainly wasn't.

robindch

Cool Mo D wrote: »

And really, Ancient Greece (or apartheid South Africa) cannot be considered a democracy in the modern sense. To be a real democracy, you need universal suffrage.

Ancient Greece was arguably closer to a true democratic system (voting rights existed for a large number of male citizens) than what we run here in Ireland today (voting rights for 166 people, mostly men; with irregular referendums voted on by all citizens).

Cool Mo D

robindch wrote: »

Ancient Greece was arguably closer to a true democratic system (voting rights existed for a large number of male citizens) than what we run here in Ireland today (voting rights for 166 people, mostly men; with irregular referendums voted on by all citizens).

Only if you believe that representative democracy is somehow less of a "true" democracy than direct democracy, which seems like a bit of a no true scotsman issue to me.

robindch

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Only if you believe that representative democracy is somehow less of a "true" democracy than direct democracy [...]

I'm saying that representative democracy is one thing and democracy with all decisions made by the citizens is quite another, despite the term "democracy" being applied to both.

Personally, I prefer the latter polity, though I still despair at the inability of the citizens of Ireland to wrap their tiny little heads around what referendums actually are.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I'm saying that representative democracy is one thing and democracy with all decisions made by the citizens is quite another, despite the term "democracy" being applied to both.

Personally, I prefer the latter polity, though I still despair at the inability of the citizens of Ireland to wrap their tiny little heads around what referendums actually are.

I am appalled at how the citizens of Ireland seem to have no idea as to how the system works..or doesn't as the case may be...

biko

Nodin wrote: »

Athens was a democracy, and was a nation of war mongering slave owners. America was a democracy and was a nation where a large part of the economy was based on slavery. Israel is a nation that illegally colonises areas outside its borders and runs a two tier apartheid like system. Going 'but look at the Arabs' doesn't really cut it.

Pretty unfair comparison there Nodin. I suppose you could compare it other old or ancient nations but anyone in Israel is free to leave, there's no slaves there.
1.5 million Arabs with Israeli citizenship can vote in elections, that about 20& of the total population.
As for two-tiered apartheid system - there are even Arab parties in Israel, how many jewish parties can you find in the surrounding nations?

pauldla

I suppose it comes down to how one defines 'democratic'. It can be a very vague term, as people in the DPRK might say (very very quietly to themselves).

Siuin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Possibly in the case of Israel it is different in that Judaism is passed through the female line - so if one had a Jewish grandmother and a Jewish mother one is considered Jewish and can become a citizen of Israel without any of one's ancestors ever having set foot there in the last 2000 years.

No, actually your're wrong. You don't need to be Jewish to qualify for the Right to Return. You only need one Jewish grandparent (from either side). I dated a Russian who was not Jewish, identified himself as a Christian in the Israeli army (for the additional holidays- he wasn't religious) and was still well able to have full rights as an Israeli citizen. It's based on idea that if someone was 'Jewish enough' to die in the Holocaust, then they're Jewish enough to live in the State of Israel.

Obliq wrote: »

(the fella looks Jewish, there could be no doubt about his ethnicity)

There's no such thing as a 'Jewish look' per se. Just a stereotype of what Jews should look like which has gained momentum from anti-Semites. Jews can be an race or nationality and I've personally met Chinese, Ethiopian, Russian and Indian Jews, all very different in their appearances.

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to how one defines 'democratic'. It can be a very vague term, as people in the DPRK might say (very very quietly to themselves).

The DPRK does have parliamentary elections, but their ballots contain the name of a single candidate nominated by the Party; the ballot isn't secret and you can have seven kinds of crap beaten out of you if you somehow manage to avoid voting for the party hack you're suppose to support.

Technically, it does constitute representative democracy, but of a fairly subverted type.

Mansai!

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Pretty unfair comparison there Nodin. I suppose you could compare it other old or ancient nations but anyone in Israel is free to leave, there's no slaves there.
1.5 million Arabs with Israeli citizenship can vote in elections, that about 20& of the total population.
As for two-tiered apartheid system - there are even Arab parties in Israel, how many jewish parties can you find in the surrounding nations?

I was talking about the occupied territories. And yes, as its Israel who instigates and enforces the policies that are enacted there, it makes it guilty of running an apartheid "province".

biko

So let's look at Palestine/Gaza/West Bank, is that a democracy?
What say you Nodin?

President Abbas rules the West Bank and Hamas the Gaza.
Are both Palestine? Are both a democracy?

If you had to spend a week in either Gaza, Israel or West Bank, where would you as an Irish man be most comfortable and safe?

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Lol. So let's look at Palestine/Gaza/West Bank, is that a democracy?
What say you Nodin?

President Abbas rules the West Bank and Hamas the Gaza.
Are both Palestine? Are both a democracy?

If you had to spend a week in either Gaza, Israel or West Bank, where would you as an Irish man be most comfortable and safe?

I see you're back at 'But the Palestinians....' again.

The west bank is run as a democracy, in as much as is possible, given the occupation.

Gaza was being run as a democracy, until certain parties didn't like the result....
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

biko

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on Abbas, didn't his mandate as president end in 2009? It seems PLO/Fatah is just extending his reign "until the conditions are right for a new election"? Are Fatah first hoping to kick out Hamas, then perhaps start an election?

The way I see it is that if the Palestinians now get full control they'll start a civil war, much like the period after the Brits leaving Ireland.
The brits could just sit back and watch from beyond the water, but a civil war between Fatah and Hamas will most certainly spill over into Israel and of course don't forget that they both have reason to hate Israel/jews.

A pretty good documentary from Vice on the Israel/Fatah/Hamas conflict.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWJFC98jPrQ

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on Abbas, didn't his mandate as president end in 2009? It seems PLO/Fatah is just extending his reign "until the conditions are right for a new election"? Are Fatah first hoping to kick out Hamas, then perhaps start an election?
,,,,,,,,

Considering the US won't tolerate any other regime, thats more than likely whats going to happen.

Still prefering to talk about the Palestinians than the illegal occupation.....

biko

You keep bringing it up aren't you, but this thread is about democracy. So let's talk about democracy.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

You keep bringing it up aren't you, but this thread is about democracy. So let's talk about democracy.

It's about "jewish democracy". Theres absolutely no incompatibility with Judaism and democracy, so its unfortunate that the one Jewish majority state on the planet chooses to inflict an undemocratic colonial regime on its nearest neighbours. Thus, the notion that Israel is the "only democracy in the middle east" fails any detailed scrutiny.

Dades

Let's TRY and keep this from becoming an Israel v Palestine thread, and keep it about *democracy* - whatever that is.

Sycopat

Isn't democracy just a system that chooses 'X' based on voting? (Where X can be pretty much anything) As far as I know there is no requirement for every citizen in a democracy to have a vote. IIRC historical democracies often had eligibility conditions, land ownership, class membership etc.

So jewish and democratic, where only jews have the right to vote, is still a democracy.

There's nothing inherent in democracy that guarantees suffrage for all.

Banbh

I think you're right there Syco. You can define democracy as just having a vote but then, for example, the US would claim that Cuba isn't a democracy because the candidates must all support one party - though it doesn't have the same difficulty with China (or at least isn't willing to put an embargo on China).
So, some countries define democracy differently.
Israel defines itself as a democracy which it probably is by Middle-Eastern standards.
Apart from the head-counting aspect of democracy, there are, by most definitions, other things required to fit the description, such as respect for human rights, equality before the law etc and here Israel clearly falls down.
I think it fair to say that by European standards, a country which declares itself to be a state of one religious group is not a democracy and no European country would give aid to an African country, for example, that declared itself to be the state of one religion.

recedite

Gerrymandering.
That's what jewish democracy is all about. As long as the jewish element maintains a majority over the arab element, Israel can be a jewish state and a democracy.
That is why they cannot incorporate the occupied territories into the state. That is why they must gradually build new settlements around the edges of their country, and then import "jews" from around the world to occupy the new houses. That is why they make life as uncomfortable as possible for the native palestinians; so they will feck off to some other country as refugees.
Still, the Israeli jews are closer to us "westerners"in their cultural attitudes than the Palestinian arabs, so we don't mind too much that their modus operandi is quite distasteful.

biko

Sycopat wrote: »

Isn't democracy just a system that chooses 'X' based on voting? (Where X can be pretty much anything) As far as I know there is no requirement for every citizen in a democracy to have a vote. IIRC historical democracies often had eligibility conditions, land ownership, class membership etc.

So jewish and democratic, where only jews have the right to vote, is still a democracy.

As Nodin pointed out before the concept of democracy (people rule) is from Athens at which time only free men could vote, women and slaves could not.
This is how many countries did it for hundreds of years and some still do, UAE I think.
New Zealand is said to be first to allow women to vote in 1893.
Ireland at the time of the Brits leaving, less than a hundred years ago...
Saudi Arabia very recently changed to allow women into politics.

The concept of democracy has evolved into what we today consider democracy, i.e. every citizen over 18 can vote.

In Israel as I pointed out about a fifth of the population are arab citizens and can vote, for national jewish or arab parties.
Palestinians born inside Israel borders can vote.
Palestinians born in West Bank or Gaza are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote.

Most of the arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967, were offered Israeli citizenship, but refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty. They became permanent residents. They are entitled to municipal services and have municipal voting rights.

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

Isn't democracy just a system that chooses 'X' based on voting?

As above, "democracy" is a system in which all members of a polity vote in all decisions taken by that polity. And, down through the years, various polities have implemented this in various ways, with, to say the very least, varying degrees of fairness and success.

The variables in any voting system are the choices on offer, the action resulting from the vote and the voting protocol used.

On that last one -- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

-- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Historian Nerdvana .

Thank you Robin.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

On that last one -- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

it frustrates me I get through about 5 pages of Iain M Banks a night before I pass out - interesting and all as that may be I can't see myself getting past paragraph one before blacking out. :pac:

Sycopat

Banbh wrote: »

I think you're right there Syco. You can define democracy as just having a vote but then, for example, the US would claim that Cuba isn't a democracy because the candidates must all support one party - though it doesn't have the same difficulty with China (or at least isn't willing to put an embargo on China).
So, some countries define democracy differently.
Israel defines itself as a democracy which it probably is by Middle-Eastern standards.
Apart from the head-counting aspect of democracy, there are, by most definitions, other things required to fit the description, such as respect for human rights, equality before the law etc and here Israel clearly falls down.
I think it fair to say that by European standards, a country which declares itself to be a state of one religious group is not a democracy and no European country would give aid to an African country, for example, that declared itself to be the state of one religion.

recedite wrote: »

Gerrymandering.
That's what jewish democracy is all about. As long as the jewish element maintains a majority over the arab element, Israel can be a jewish state and a democracy.
That is why they cannot incorporate the occupied territories into the state. That is why they must gradually build new settlements around the edges of their country, and then import "jews" from around the world to occupy the new houses. That is why they make life as uncomfortable as possible for the native palestinians; so they will feck off to some other country as refugees.
Still, the Israeli jews are closer to us "westerners"in their cultural attitudes than the Palestinian arabs, so we don't mind too much that their modus operandi is quite distasteful.

I don't disagree with either of you that the situation in Isreal is certainly not what I consider ideal, I'm just used to the democracy being 'voting systems' and 'republic' being the involvement of the citizenship in governance. I don't know if Isreal considers itself a republic or not.

That we in western europe and various democratic republics around the world conflate the two and throw in other idea's along with it doesn't mean we should, because it means that countries which are not culturally similar to ours can make themselves appear to be more so.

To make an analogy(aka 'Because my knowledge on this field is woefully lacking, I need to supplement it with hitchhikers references.'), by calling themselves a democracy, Isreal are letting us know they know where their towel is, and we assumes this means they are hoopy froods. Redefining the towel to also be everything else we assumed goes along with it doesn't resolve the issue, which is putting too much emphasis on towels.


I've probably just confused things more, I'm certainly confused (Although that may be due in part to being in belgium and drinking heavily) and not really equipped for this topic but isn't redefining 'democracy' to be a 'western liberal, humanist, republican democracy' (or democracy plus all the other bits) in order to declare Isreal not a democracy a bit of a no true scotsman?

robindch wrote: »

As above, "democracy" is a system in which all members of a polity vote in all decisions taken by that polity. And, down through the years, various polities have implemented this in various ways, with, to say the very least, varying degrees of fairness and success.

The variables in any voting system are the choices on offer, the action resulting from the vote and the voting protocol used.

On that last one -- and as it's been a while since voting protocols last came up here -- I can do nothing more than recommend this magisterial, fascinating paper which analyzes the voting protocol used in the elections for the Doge of Venice between the 13th and 18th centuries. Still, I believe, the longest-serving voting protocols devised:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Cheers for that, it's going to take me a while to wrap my head around that voting system though.

Links234

biko wrote: »

Let me know when a transsexual man can represent an Arab nation as Dana International did for Israel in Eurovision 1998, 14 years ago.

She's a transsexual woman! Just for comparison, this guy is a transsexual man. Sorry, pedant in me couldn't let that one go!

biko

Oops my mistake, thanks for setting me straight on that.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

The west bank is run as a democracy, in as much as is possible, given the occupation.

Gaza was being run as a democracy, until certain parties didn't like the result....
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

Em, I remember when Hamas won the election of 2006 they then decided to use their 'mandate' to round up Fatah oppositon members and started to exectute them in cold blood, thus strengthing their position.
Yeap, very democratic, dont you think? :rolleyes:

Israel is by no means perfect, far from it but given the status of its neighbours and their views on 'democracy' (see Egypt, Syria, Tunisia) then one can do far worse. The problem of course is the people compare Israel or any other country to some utopian democratic country that doesnt exist in the real world.

Banbh

I like the argument that Israel is a democracy because an Arab country isn't.
The Irish are kind to animals because the French eat horses.

And seriously, the problem lies with the term 'Israel' as it is an unknown entity.
De facto it includes areas under military occupation where the people don't have votes, are subject to arbitrary laws and regulations based on a religion not their own and where they cannot even use the roads.

Before anyone could make the claim that Israel is a democracy, they would first have to explain where it is as with the ethnic cleansing, it is changing almost daily. To suggest that if the additional territory is cleared of inhabitants and planted with immigrants at a rate that ensures a majority will be Jews is to make a nonsense of any definition of the word democracy.

recedite

Banbh wrote: »

To suggest that if the additional territory is cleared of inhabitants and planted with immigrants at a rate that ensures a majority will be Jews is to make a nonsense of any definition of the word democracy.

True, but continued support from the USA is dependent on continued "democratic" status. And without US backing they would be finished.

When the Nazi's wanted a bit of extra living space, they had no such qualms, they could annex territories much more quickly as minority rulers. But then that strategy proved somewhat unstable. For a true1000 year Reich, you really need to look after your majority

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Em, I remember when Hamas won the election of 2006 they then decided to use their 'mandate' to round up Fatah oppositon members and started to exectute them in cold blood, thus strengthing their position.
Yeap, very democratic, dont you think? :rolleyes:
......

You can "remember" all you want - that, however, isn't what happened. Theres a link in the post you quoted you would do well to read.

Banbh

Again, proving that Hamas isn't democratic doesn't make Israel democratic.